Plan Review: 190 Issues Found

Summary: The drawing specifies an 8-inch thick concrete foundation pad reinforced with #8 bars at 12" on center each way, top and bottom. ACI 318-14 Section 13.3.1.2 requires that the overall depth of a foundation be selected such that the effective depth of bottom reinforcement is at least 6 inches. For this 8" pad with #8 bars (db = 1.0"), the effective depth d = 8" minus concrete cover minus db/2. Si...

Why it matters: This is a fundamental structural deficiency. The 8" pad thickness is physically incapable of meeting the ACI minimum effective depth requirement for foundations. This will impact the flexural and shear capacity of the foundation. Increasing the pad thickness to a minimum of approximately 12" to 1...

Suggested next step: Request the structural engineer to review the 8" concrete pad thickness and confirm it satisfies ACI 318-14 Section 13.3.1.2 requiring a minimum effective depth of 6 inches for bottom reinforcement. If this element is classified as a foundation, the overall depth must be incre...

RFI draft: Request the structural engineer to review the 8" concrete pad thickness and confirm it satisfies ACI 318-14 Section 13.3.1.2 requiring a minimum effective depth of 6 inches for bottom reinforcement. If this element is classified as a foundation, t...

Summary: The structural sections show main vertical wall reinforcement terminating at the foundation joints without a corresponding number of dowels. In Section C, the wall vertical reinforcement is detailed as '#6 @ 8" OC TYP', but the foundation dowels are spaced at '#6 @ 16" OC VERT BARS W/STD HOOK TYP', leaving half the vertical bars abruptly terminating at the joint without full continuity.

Why it matters: ACI 318-14 Section 25.4.1.1 mandates that tension or compression in reinforcement be fully developed on each side of a section. A construction joint at the base of a cantilevered wall is a critical moment section requiring full reinforcement continuity. Furthermore, Section 25.5.1.3 limits the tr...

Suggested next step: Please revise Section C to provide foundation dowels that match the size, spacing, and face location of the primary vertical wall reinforcement (e.g., #6 @ 8" OC dowels for Section C) to ensure proper splice spacing and full structural development.

RFI draft: Please revise Section C to provide foundation dowels that match the size, spacing, and face location of the primary vertical wall reinforcement (e.g., #6 @ 8" OC dowels for Section C) to ensure proper splice spacing and full structural development.

Summary: Sheet SS-514 is explicitly stamped "FOR BID ONLY / NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION." IBC Section 1603.1 requires that construction documents show the size, section and relative locations of structural members with the design loads and other pertinent structural design information. A document that explicitly declares itself not for construction cannot fulfill the code's requirements for construction docume...

Why it matters: If these drawings are submitted for building permit or issued to a contractor for fabrication and erection, the building official will reject them because they are not valid construction documents. Using bid-only documents for steel fabrication could result in significant rework if member sizes, ...

Suggested next step: Request the Engineer of Record to issue a construction-level set of structural drawings for sheet SS-514 (and all related structural sheets) with the "FOR BID ONLY" stamp removed, incorporating any design changes made since the bid phase, and including all information required...

RFI draft: Request the Engineer of Record to issue a construction-level set of structural drawings for sheet SS-514 (and all related structural sheets) with the "FOR BID ONLY" stamp removed, incorporating any design changes made since the bid phase, and incl...

Summary: Sheet SS-312 is explicitly stamped "FOR BID ONLY NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION." IBC Section 1603.1 establishes requirements for construction documents, stating they "shall show the size, section and relative locations of structural members with floor levels, column centers and offsets dimensioned" along with design loads and other pertinent structural design information. Documents explicitly marked as ...

Why it matters: If these bid-only documents are submitted for permit review or issued to the contractor for fabrication and erection, the building official would be required to reject them as they are self-identified as not suitable for construction. This would cause significant permitting delays, re-issuance co...

Suggested next step: Request that the structural engineer of record re-issue sheet SS-312 as "FOR CONSTRUCTION" documents, confirming all structural steel sections, connections, and design information are final and that the drawings satisfy IBC Section 1603.1 requirements for construction document...

RFI draft: Request that the structural engineer of record re-issue sheet SS-312 as "FOR CONSTRUCTION" documents, confirming all structural steel sections, connections, and design information are final and that the drawings satisfy IBC Section 1603.1 requirem...

Summary: Sheet SS-313 contains the explicit stamp 'FOR BID ONLY NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION.' IBC Section 1603.1 requires that construction documents show the size, section, and relative locations of structural members. This sheet depicts critical conveyor structural steel truss elevations (B4 F1, B4 F2, B4 F4, B4 F5, B5 F1, B5 F2) with member designations such as W14X43, W12X26, 2L4X4X1/4, and 2L3X3X3/16, yet...

Why it matters: If this sheet is included in a construction document set submitted for building permit or issued for fabrication, the building official may reject the submittal, and steel fabricators and erectors will refuse to fabricate or erect structural members based on a document marked 'FOR BID ONLY.' This...

Suggested next step: Request that the structural engineer of record update sheet SS-313 by removing the 'FOR BID ONLY NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION' designation and reissuing it as a construction document suitable for permit review, fabrication, and erection.

RFI draft: Request that the structural engineer of record update sheet SS-313 by removing the 'FOR BID ONLY NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION' designation and reissuing it as a construction document suitable for permit review, fabrication, and erection.

Summary: Two separate pages within the same document both carry the sheet number SS-511, but they contain entirely different content and titles. Page 44 is titled 'ALT FUELS SYSTEM UNLOADING AREA STRUCTURAL STEEL BASE PLATE DETAILS' and contains base plate details (BP04 through BP09 and a shear key detail). Page 71 is titled 'ALT FUELS SYSTEM CONVEYOR STRUCTURAL STEEL DETAILS & SECTIONS' and contains co...

Why it matters: Duplicate sheet numbers will cause significant confusion during construction. Any cross-reference to SS-511 from other drawings in the set is ambiguous — fabricators, erectors, and inspectors will not know which sheet is intended. This could lead to incorrect base plate or connection fabrication....

Suggested next step: Request the engineer of record clarify and assign unique sheet numbers to the two sheets currently both numbered SS-511. One covers 'ALT FUELS SYSTEM UNLOADING AREA STRUCTURAL STEEL BASE PLATE DETAILS' and the other covers 'ALT FUELS SYSTEM CONVEYOR STRUCTURAL STEEL DETAILS & ...

RFI draft: Request the engineer of record clarify and assign unique sheet numbers to the two sheets currently both numbered SS-511. One covers 'ALT FUELS SYSTEM UNLOADING AREA STRUCTURAL STEEL BASE PLATE DETAILS' and the other covers 'ALT FUELS SYSTEM CONVEY...

Summary: SC-101 Foundation Layout Note 7 states foundations shall bear on soil with a minimum allowable bearing capacity of 2,500 PSF. SC-104 ER Plan notes (within the plan view) Note 8 states foundations have been designed for a maximum allowable soil bearing capacity of 3,000 PSF. Additionally, SC-104 contains a separate notes block that repeats the 2,500 PSF value, creating an internal contradiction ...

Why it matters: A 500 PSF difference in allowable bearing capacity (20% variance) is structurally significant. If the Electrical Room and Transformer foundations were designed assuming 3,000 PSF bearing capacity but the site only provides 2,500 PSF, the foundations may be undersized, leading to potential settlem...

Suggested next step: Please clarify the design allowable soil bearing capacity for the Electrical Room and Transformer foundations referenced between SC-101 and SC-104. SC-101 Note 7 specifies 2,500 PSF while SC-104 plan notes Note 8 specifies 3,000 PSF. Which value governs the foundation design? ...

RFI draft: Please clarify the design allowable soil bearing capacity for the Electrical Room and Transformer foundations referenced between SC-101 and SC-104. SC-101 Note 7 specifies 2,500 PSF while SC-104 plan notes Note 8 specifies 3,000 PSF. Which value g...

Summary: Sheet SS-211 (page 36) carries a stamp reading 'FOR BID ONLY / NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION', whereas sheet SS-518 (page 51), which is explicitly referenced from SS-211 as detail '1/SS-518' at the head pulley / BENT 5 area, carries a stamp reading 'ISSUED FOR CONSTRUCTION'. These two sheets directly cross-reference each other (SS-211 calls out Detail 1 on SS-518, and SS-518's Detail 1 references back t...

Why it matters: This status mismatch creates significant confusion for construction. If a contractor uses SS-518 (issued for construction) to fabricate structural steel details at the head pulley and BENT 5 area, but SS-211 (the governing plan and elevation) is only for bid and not for construction, then any dim...

Suggested next step: Request clarification on the current issue status of sheet SS-211. Confirm whether SS-211 has been updated to 'Issued for Construction' status consistent with SS-518, or whether SS-518 should be reverted to 'For Bid Only'. All sheets that cross-reference each other should carr...

RFI draft: Request clarification on the current issue status of sheet SS-211. Confirm whether SS-211 has been updated to 'Issued for Construction' status consistent with SS-518, or whether SS-518 should be reverted to 'For Bid Only'. All sheets that cross-re...

Summary: The structural framing plan on sheet SS-104 calls out detail '2\nSS-507' in an area where the identified framing includes a W8X31, W8X10, and '(E) W18X50'. However, the corresponding detail on sheet SS-507 shows additional steel members that contradict the plan. Detail 2 includes an '(E) W18X35' member and an additional diagonal member framing into the joint from the bottom-right, neither of wh...

Why it matters: If the detail is correct, the framing plan is missing critical existing and/or new members at the Detail 2 location, which will affect field erection and understanding of existing conditions. If the plan is correct, the connection detail provided cannot be executed as drawn. This discrepancy must...

Suggested next step: Please clarify the discrepancy between the framing plan on SS-104 and Detail 2 on SS-507. Confirm whether the (E) W18X35 member and the additional diagonal member exist at this specific connection location, and update the affected plan or detail accordingly to ensure consistency.

RFI draft: Please clarify the discrepancy between the framing plan on SS-104 and Detail 2 on SS-507. Confirm whether the (E) W18X35 member and the additional diagonal member exist at this specific connection location, and update the affected plan or detail a...

Summary: There is a direct contradiction regarding the overall North-South dimension of the building footprint. The Foundation Plan indicates a 20'-0" dimension. This 20'-0" length mathematically aligns with the roof slope shown on the East Elevation, which dictates a 5" drop (from HP 795'-10" to LP 795'-5") at a 1/4" per foot slope (20' * 0.25" = 5"). However, the Roof Plan and the Exterior Elevations ...

Why it matters: A 2-foot discrepancy in the building's footprint will cause severe alignment failures between the foundation, structural steel framing, masonry walls, and roof structure. It also renders the specified roof slope mathematically impossible if the 18'-0" dimension is used.

Suggested next step: Clarify the correct North-South overall exterior dimension for the Electrical Room. Update the Foundation Plan, Roof Plan, and Elevations to reflect a consistent footprint, and ensure the roof slope and elevation markers match the final dimension.

RFI draft: Clarify the correct North-South overall exterior dimension for the Electrical Room. Update the Foundation Plan, Roof Plan, and Elevations to reflect a consistent footprint, and ensure the roof slope and elevation markers match the final dimension.

Summary: The "ALT FUELS SYSTEM\nUNLOADING AREA\nSTRUCTURAL STEEL\nDEMOLITION PLANS & ELEVATIONS" indicate Top of Steel elevations of "960'-2\"" and "940'-8\"" using a grid system with designations like "pA", "pA.1", "pB", and "p4". Conversely, the new "ALT FUELS SYSTEM UNLOADING AREA STRUCTURAL STEEL PLANS" for the same area detail framing at significantly lower elevations, such as "784'-6\"", "792'-0\"...

Why it matters: Because there is no common elevation datum or shared grid coordinate system between the demolition plans and the new construction plans, it is impossible to accurately coordinate the limits of existing steel removal with the new framing tie-ins. This suggests either a massive datum shift error (~...

Suggested next step: Clarify the relationship between the Demolition Plans (DD-101) and New Steel Plans (SS-101, SS-102). Provide a datum conversion note or key plan if these grids and elevations correspond to the same physical structure, or provide the missing demolition and new framing plans for...

RFI draft: Clarify the relationship between the Demolition Plans (DD-101) and New Steel Plans (SS-101, SS-102). Provide a datum conversion note or key plan if these grids and elevations correspond to the same physical structure, or provide the missing demoli...

Summary: There is a major discrepancy regarding the structural supports between grid lines b2 and b1. The Foundation Plan (SC-111) and General Steel Elevation (SS-211) show three distinct grids in this area: b2, b1.8, and b1. SC-111 provides separate concrete pedestals at grid b2 (PD05), grid b1.8 (PD06), and grid b1 (PD07). SS-211 shows the 94'-5 7/8" dimension spanning from grid b1.8 to b1. However...

Why it matters: By merging grids b2 and b1.8 into a single BENT 2, SS-213 effectively shortens the conveyor structure by the span between b2 and b1.8 (approximately 16 feet). This creates a critical constructability conflict: the steel detailers working from SS-213 will not provide a steel bent for grid b1.8, le...

Suggested next step: Clarify the grid layout and BENT locations between b2 and b1. Should the conveyor sub frame on SS-213 include a separate support at grid b1.8 to match the foundation pedestals (PD06) detailed on SC-111? Please issue revised drawings reconciling the grid spacing and confirming ...

RFI draft: Clarify the grid layout and BENT locations between b2 and b1. Should the conveyor sub frame on SS-213 include a separate support at grid b1.8 to match the foundation pedestals (PD06) detailed on SC-111? Please issue revised drawings reconciling th...

Summary: There is a direct contradiction in the primary chord member sizes and panel bay spacing for Truss B3. On SS-312, the elevation views (B3 F1 and B3 F2) call out W12x40 and W12x26 for the top and bottom chord members. However, on SS-315, the plan view for the same section (B3 F3) spanning between Work Points WP 3-4 and WP 3-6 specifies W16x77 and W16x36 for the chords. Additionally, the adjacent ...

Why it matters: The chords are the primary load-bearing members forming the 3D envelope of the conveyor box truss. A discrepancy between W12 and W16 chords represents a significant structural capacity and detailing conflict. Furthermore, because the horizontal panel spacing in the plan view does not mathematical...

Suggested next step: Please clarify the correct chord member sizes and panel bay spacing for the B3 truss (spanning between Work Points WP 3-4 and WP 3-6). Should the chords be W12x40/W12x26 as shown in elevations on SS-312, or W16x77/W16x36 as shown in the plan view on SS-315? Ensure node spacing...

RFI draft: Please clarify the correct chord member sizes and panel bay spacing for the B3 truss (spanning between Work Points WP 3-4 and WP 3-6). Should the chords be W12x40/W12x26 as shown in elevations on SS-312, or W16x77/W16x36 as shown in the plan view ...

Summary: Drawing note 6 on SC-101 specifies compaction to 100% Standard Proctor Density per ASTM D698 for backfill deeper than 10 feet. However, the specification on GN-002 under Foundations note 5 requires fill in structural areas to be compacted to at least 95% of the Maximum Modified Proctor (ASTM D1557) dry density. ASTM D698 (Standard Proctor) and ASTM D1557 (Modified Proctor) are fundamentally dif...

Why it matters: Using Standard Proctor (ASTM D698) instead of Modified Proctor (ASTM D1557) could result in inadequately compacted engineered fill beneath foundations, potentially reducing the actual bearing capacity and leading to excessive settlement. Given the drawing notes indicate up to 13 feet of uncontrol...

Suggested next step: Please clarify which compaction test standard governs for deep backfill (greater than 10 feet) in foundation areas: ASTM D698 (Standard Proctor) as stated in drawing note 6 on SC-101, or ASTM D1557 (Modified Proctor) as specified in Foundations note 5 on GN-002. Please also co...

RFI draft: Please clarify which compaction test standard governs for deep backfill (greater than 10 feet) in foundation areas: ASTM D698 (Standard Proctor) as stated in drawing note 6 on SC-101, or ASTM D1557 (Modified Proctor) as specified in Foundations no...

Summary: Drawing Note 7 on SC-102 requires backfill deeper than 10 feet to be compacted to 100% Standard Proctor Density per ASTM D698, within ±2% of optimum moisture. However, the specification on GN-002 (Foundations Note 5) requires fill in structural areas to be compacted to at least 95% of the Maximum Modified Proctor per ASTM D1557, with water content of optimum -1 to +3. ASTM D698 (Standard Procto...

Why it matters: Deep backfill within foundation areas (up to 13 feet per Note 5 on the drawing) directly supports the building foundations. If the contractor follows the drawing note and uses ASTM D698 instead of the specification-required ASTM D1557, the resulting compaction could be inadequate for the design b...

Suggested next step: Request clarification on which compaction test standard applies to deep backfill in foundation areas: ASTM D698 (Standard Proctor) at 100% as stated in Drawing Note 7, or ASTM D1557 (Modified Proctor) at 95% as stated in the specification Foundations Note 5 on GN-002. Also cla...

RFI draft: Request clarification on which compaction test standard applies to deep backfill in foundation areas: ASTM D698 (Standard Proctor) at 100% as stated in Drawing Note 7, or ASTM D1557 (Modified Proctor) at 95% as stated in the specification Foundati...